Andres Salomon wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:11:49 +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > > Andres Salomon wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'm going to suggest renaming our 2.6.12 source package from > >> linux-kernel-2.6.12 to linux-kernel-2.6. Thoughts? Dann Frazier and I > >> have discussed this on IRC a little bit, and come up w/ the following > >> points.. > >> > >> * Source: linux-kernel-2.6, Version: 2.6.12-1 > >> * As long as each arch is in synch, there are no GPL issues with older > >> binary packages being in the archive w/out the source. > >> * Nicer for bugs; http://packages.qa.debian.org/l/linux-kernel-2.6.html > >> gets us all bugs for 2.6.12+ kernels, versus having to look at > >> linux-kernel-2.6.12.html, linux-kernel-2.6.13.html, etc. > >> * Older kernels get removed; no need to ask for manual removal of > >> linux-kernel-2.6.12 after 2.6.13 becomes available for all archs. > >> However, we lose the ability to have multiple 2.6's in a release, > >> which sounds like a win to me; we shouldn't be doing multiple 2.6 > >> releases anymore anyways, the security team has made it clear they > >> don't want to support multiple kernels, and it would be extra pressure > >> for all archs to keep up. > > > > This makes it unlikely to ever get working mips/mipsel kernels in the > > single source package. > > Perhaps you could give a reason why this is the case?
Because I'm currently at 2.5 of ~8 subarchitectures working for 2.6.12, and I hear already talk about 2.6.13. Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
